Childhood

[BubbaBear]

OK, OGE...I'll buy that.

 

Maybe you know (I don't), when the LDS Church banned polygamy, was it because of moral reasons or political (i.e. was it mandated through law or did church members decide it wasn't right)?

 

You didn't comment on my explaination about the women subject...was it explanatory enough? I don't expect anyone to agree with my reasoning, however it is my own and I stick by it.

 

I guess the relevant point there is that although I disagree with BSA's policy of letting women be leaders, I am compromising (in my mind) until that "glacier comes again".

[tjhammer]

BobWhite -- I have a few observations/questions for you...

 

Since I have been a clear advocate for making character and qualification of members and leaders a matter of decision/selection for the local parents and chartering partners of each Scout unit, it should come as no surprise that I disagree with your counter to OGE's very good analogy of abortion and leaving the USA. You argue that this is not a fair analogy and that there is no parallel. I disagree. Abortion became the law of the land, whether I personally like it or not. I have really only two choices leave the land or support the change to the law. I obviously value my country and consider myself a good patriot, so leaving isnt an option. Banning gays became the law of the land in Scouting, and I have the same two choices, and the same dilemma. In my mind, theres no other country as great as the USA for me to move to, and I obviously would have difficult just going and starting my own country (hmmm, Ill have to consider that). And theres no other program as great as the BSA, and I would obviously have difficulty starting my own.

 

See, I believe that Scouting, with 4 million active members from every corner of America, is just too big of an "association" and too divided on this particular issue to have a blanket national policy banning homosexuals. Your right to "association", in my mind, should clearly be protected as far it applies to people you actually "associate" with. I've asked several times for an argument on how allowing a Scout unit in Boston or St. Paul to include a member who is gay will possibly affect the Scouting program/experience people deliver in Oshkosh or Paduhkah. No one has ever made that argument, other than evoking slippery slopes or general compromise of principles (whose principles?).

 

Your argument that just a few of the 130,000,000 Scouts that have passed through our program have actually been expelled because they are gay doesn't hold any water at all. As you know, BSA did not start expelling gay members (based solely on the fact that they were gay) until just recently. In fact, I think this particular argument reinforces my original point even further... it is absurd to claim that the BSA's policy speaks for or is endorsed by or even relates to 130 million people. Or even 4 million.

 

You do, however, make an excellent observation contrasting the importance of traffic laws today with the fact that the libertarian founders of our country would have opposed them. I had to ponder that point for a second, until I realized that traffic laws and the BSA banning homosexuals are unfair analogies. Traffic laws exist to protect people (both the driver and other folks on the road) from harm and to provide an orderly way of navigating our roadways.

 

BSA makes no claim whatsoever that the ban on homosexuals exists to protect anyone from harm. Nor have I heard any argument really on how allowing another unit to have specific membership standards different from your own would disrupt your orderly way of navigating our program.

 

I don't understand how you reconcile your very strong opinion that women are qualified to serve as Scout leaders (since that is now the accepted policy), with your argument that gays should not (since that is not the current policy). Many, if not most, of the same arguments used today against gays were invoked 15 years ago against women.

 

Fifteen years ago, before Scouting accepted women leaders, what was your opinion? (I will volunteer that my own opinion has changed on that issue from my perspective of 15 years ago.) Did you work within the system to express that opinion? Did you attempt to influence your fellow Scout leaders to support your point of view at all? Regardless of what your opinion was then, you obviously support women in leadership roles today. So how are you affected by the fact that the Mormon Church (with 35% of our membership) still refuses to acknowledge women are capable of being Scout leaders? Does this cause you or your unit "harm" or disrupt the "orderly way" you deliver your program?

 

Finally, the other inconsistency I would like to ask you about (again) is how you possibly reconcile your very adamant disdain for embarrassing a Scout by making him sing for a lost pocket knife with your apparently complete lack of concern over the harm we cause a 14 year old gay Scout by sending him the messages we send as an organization. You obviously were very passionate about protecting all the kids and eradicating the emotional harm of forced singing in front of a group, but you appear to be saying that since "less than 1% of Scouting" has been affected by this policy we have more important things to focus on.

 

[BubbaBear]

Rooster:

 

Early on in this sub-forum, you stated that there comes a point in time when we need to educate our children before someone else does.

 

Unless we control every moment of our children's contact with anyone else, how can we prevent them from learning from others? If we trust that the day care center we leave our children to is protecting our child while we are not there, and one of the "teachers" provides an immoral lesson, how can we stop that from happening? What if that day care center is a ministry of the very chuch that we were raised and married in?

 

Another very good point can be made out of all of this; we are ovelooking the children's ability to teach other children. If we do our upmost to shelter our children from what we view as immoral, what is to say that they will not learn it from other youth that we do not defend against?

[sctmom]

Scouting For All does not speak for everyone who thinks the gay ban should be lifted. I believe they also want girls to be in BSA at all levels. I will very quickly tell you that Boys and Girls need their own scouting programs.

 

As far as atheists go, I am torn. I have been trying to educate myself more about the religous background of scouting and about atheists and other religions. I believe in a higher power, but think atheists can not believe if they so choose. Yet, there seems to be a lot in scouting that you cannot seperate from spirituality -- appreciation for nature, giving service to others.

 

When I first became aware of the "gay" issue in scouting (after my son was a member), I thought about should we continue to participate since I do not agree with the ban. I do not feel that my son is danger, morally or physically, because of the ban. When he becomes aware of it, I will explain that I do not agree and explain both sides of the issue. He is welcome to disagree with me.

 

Many of you feel that if a gay person is allowed as a registered leader that the boys are in danger, morally and/or physically. Therefore you would leave because of this danger, and rightly so. In my case the benefits of scouting far outweigh the "risk" to ME and MY SON of this one policy. If gays are allowed in and you are for the current policy, your risks are much greater.

 

I believe the best about people and feel the scout leaders are not teaching him to be homophobic. If they are telling him to be homophobic I would remove him from that troop immediately because they should not be discussing sex with him. That's on the same logic of why we stayed away from the troop that had adults with bad language and bad attitudes. I felt he was in danger around those people.

 

Does that make sense in explaining why many of us do NOT leave, even though we disagree with the policy?

 

The other thing is that it concerns me that the Scout Executive has supposedly said that if the membership numbers drop he will reconsider the policy. That is the wrong reason to change the policy! That seems to go against so much of scouting values -- being brave in the face of adversity, standing up for your principles, etc. I would hate to see it changed just because of numbers. I hope that he was misquoted on that.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Bubba,

 

I dont know if the LDS ban on polygamy was based on politics or morals. Hopefully a LDS member will chime in with that knowledge.

 

I do know the reason polygamy got started in the LDS was because enough of their men were lynched, murdered, executed, etc. by other wise God fearing citizens that to maintain their numbers, the leaders thought best to allow polygamy rather than allow their young women to marry outside of their faith. Talk about changing morals. All the LDS church wanted was to be left alone and they were chased from New York to Illinois and finally to Salt Lake City in a country founded with freedom of/from worship as a main principle.

 

As for you explanation of women, I miss it, try typing slower as I cant read very fast

[sctmom]

I'm not Mormon but I saw this article recently online about a man charged with polygamy in Utah. He has 5 wives and 29 children. The CNN article says:

 

Polygamy's legacy in Utah dates back to the 1840s, when members of the Church of Latter Day Saints, as the Mormon church is formally known, first settled in the state.

 

But the practice never gained wider currency outside the Church. By 1890, the Church banned the taking of multiple wives, with the penalty for offenders being excommunication. Utah's constitution formally outlawed polygamy as a condition of statehood.

 

But despite the ban, polygamy never died out in Utah. An estimated 30,000 polygamists, most of them in Utah, live in the American West, according to the Associated Press.

 

 

[BubbaBear]

Folks, there is a third choice in the abortion scenario.

 

A person can continue practicing Pro-Life without fear of being removed as a citizen of the U.S.

There is no laws against doing so. In the case being debated here, that clearly isn't applicable.

 

I think you should avoid using that example, it does'n fit here.

 

Once again, I have said that I do not believe that our discussion here will be directly responsible for any action on the part of BSA.

 

I do, however, know that our great country is

founded in compromise, and unwittingly, I think that national has the answer right before it.

Although the program belongs to BSA, it is provided to COs to be used with a group owned by the COs. The CO can use the program any way they want to (as evidenced in part by the LDS).

 

Clearly (IMHO) the answer is to allow each CO to provide the program as they see fit. In doing so,

the Values can be upheld throughout, with each CO expressing what their individual vales are. Parents can pick and choose (as they do now), the COs can take a stance for their individual sense of morality, BSA doesn't have the headache of membership drop or alienating anyone, but most importantly, THE BOYS DON'T GET HURT, and the purity of the Scouting Movement gains strength.

 

An example, Muslims can sponsor (and I believe they do) a Boy Scout Unit. I am Christian, and Christians believe that you cannot enter the Kingdom of God unless you profess Christ as your savior. Their beliefs conflict with mine but I respect their right to sponsor a unit. Anyone not wishing to be exposed to their teachings clearly will take their boy to another unit. No problem.

 

As a tangent,and on a very neutral basis, this is why I personally believe that the Scouting program can be better provided by unbiased units (read my thesis).

 

And so, if your CO stands for the immorality of homosexuality, then anyone seeking to associate with non-homosexuals will flock to your unit. Should there be 1% homosexual leaders and youth thinking they are, they will flock (can 1% flock?) to those that welcome them.

 

I think you all were alluding to this kind of compromise right along. I cannot see how anyone can disagree with the logic of it because it is a win-win situation for all.

[BubbaBear]

OGE: I couldn't re-write what I said because my wife read it and now I am grounded! Besides, I think my fingers were typing faster than my mind could see the words!

 

Sctmom: I appreciate that article, I truly did not know any of that. One thing comes to mind though;

why would any man in his right mind want more that one wife? Owwwwwe! Sorry honey! Now I have a lump on the side of my head.

 

To any LDS members reading my posts: I mean no disrepsect to your religion, I respect your right to practice your faith as you wish. Truly.

[NJCubScouter]

BubbaBear asks:

 

Maybe you know (I don't), when the LDS Church banned polygamy, was it because of moral reasons or political (i.e. was it mandated through law or did church members decide it wasn't right)?

 

It's amazing what you can find on the Web: http://www.dced.state.ut.us/history/HistoryFacts/uhstruggleforst-hood.html

 

This is an official Web page from the government of the State of Utah describing the 40-odd year struggle between the leaders of the people of Utah (basically the leaders of the LDS church) and Congress over Utah statehood. It is a remarkably frank document to find on a government Web site, in my opinion. (For example, I doubt that on New Jersey's official web site, you would find a detailed description of the squabbling between the earliest colonists in the 17th and early 18th centuries, resulting from the fact that at least two different groups claimed royal permission to control all the land, and these groups in turn granted competing deeds for smaller parcels. Imagine you bought a farm and some "lord" shows up with a deed from the Duke of York, demanding that you leave.)

 

Anyway, the Utah site reveals that in order to achieve statehood for Utah, the LDS church had to advise its members to refrain from polygamy. It was a political, not a moral decision.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

[tjhammer]

Cubsrgr8 --- while you were falling out of your chair, you must have missed what I've written. I have affirmed (many, many times now) on this board that I personally am a Christian (though perhaps not the same kind of Christian as you). I have also said that belief in a power outside one's self (or at least the possibility of such) is a fundamental basis of Scouting (of raising children, I believe).

 

Scouting's fundamental lessons of service to fellow man and love of nature are all really spiritual matters. And Scouting, from its very earliest days, has maintained a consistent position that such belief is required in order to teach the other lessons of Scouting.

 

I believe atheism would prevent many of the other lessons of Scouting to be taught. However, any religion or other belief (including agnostics) that allows for a belief in a positive power outside one's self is all that is required of a Scouting member.

 

Scouting4All does not speak for me, any more than the Mormon Church does. I don't disagree with S4All's position on gays, but I don't have to accept their entire platform or all of their tactics. I think that they include atheists as acceptable because they want to be consistent in their "inclusive for all" argument. My argument is from an different perspective... I don't think Scouting has to be inclusive to all, I just don't believe that Scouting needs to exclude gays. I have ALWAYS supported Scouting's right to set its own membership standards and right to determine its association. My ONLY argument is that since homosexuality has NEVER been a universal membership standard in the past, and because so many good members and chartering partners DISAGREE on whether it is even an issue, and because it is possible to be a moral person of great character and still be gay, it makes sense for us to consider this question at the local level as close to the parents as possible.

[tjhammer]

Hmmmm.... resist. Resist the temptation. Oh, shoot, I can't. (Since I believe so strongly that the Mormon Church is the primary driving force behind the current policy and their threat to yank 35% of our members is an abomination, you'll have to forgive my repetitive questioning of their judgment. FWIW, I think they are free to believe whatever they want, I just think it's worth pointing out how inappropriate it is for them to set standards for everyone else).

 

That being said, anyone want to take a guess when the Mormon Church started to accept blacks into their hierarchy?

 

(Hint: you don't have to go back to the 1800s... you don't even have to go back too far past Jimmy Carter. I wonder if that too was a change in morals or political pressure.)

[Quixote]

TJ,

 

I'm suprised that you haven't linked the LDS with Osama bin Laden and the Taliban's disdain for women yet. Or maybe you'll call the Catholic church homophobic - better yet, let's refer to the Baptists as dunk-heads. Maybe if you attack other religions you'll feel even better about YOUR so called moral position on homosexual acts.

 

I find it more than slightly hypocritical of scouters to be respectful of their brand of religion or non-religion as the case may be, and then rip the LDS for tenets of their religion - you either respect others or you dont.

 

I'm not LDS, but your and NJ's conspiracy theory regarding the LDS is absurd and reeks of conspiracy theories that are usually reserved for the far right wing, not the far left wing.

 

Quixote

[Mike Long]

Interesting, I stated my objections to disparaging others faiths on another thread and was blasted for it.

 

[tjhammer]

Quixote-- let me be absolutely clear... I'm not hruling conspiracy theories. Any comments I make about the Mormon Church are rooted in specific fact. I'm not hurling epithets their direction. And I do respect their right to believe anything they want.

 

My best friend converted to the LDS church to marry a girl he loved. I've studied the religion extensively (I had to when he was told during conversion that his friends and family might ask him to reconsider, but that was clearly the devil speaking through them). I believe, without a doubt, that about 80% of what the Mormon Church stands for is hands down the best religion on the block (in terms of their sense of strong families and communities they are second to none, in my opinion). It's the other 20% of their beliefs that make it an unacceptable religion for me. I think the fact that they sponsor so many Scout units is also fantastic, and I welcome having their units at camporees and summer camp (they are typically quite enjoyable folks). I don't object to their right to believe what they want. Or to their right to sponsors Scout units with their own set of membership rules (like not allowing women leaders and changing the age of cub scouts). The only thing I object to is a having them force me to accept their religious beliefs in order to jointly belong to an independent organization like the BSA (that claims to be absoluetly non-sectarian). And my observations to question their judgement are only for the purpose of demonstrating why I don't want them to exert so unquestioned influence over the BSA as a whole.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[dan]

TJ

1980 blacks could be accepted as leaders, and their bible was rewritten. B4 that they could be members of the church but not leaders.